Dempsey Overrated?

[HeThaTruth]

6'1" is small? He's not a big heavyweight but that's not small.

He's a buck 90 soaking wet. Superheavy's like Lewis, both Klits, and even Bowe would body bag him quick

[ShoulderRoll]

I get what your saying, but honestly Dempsey was an action fighter, nothing more, nothing less...
In this history section I have learned from a lot of you guys, and Ray Corso imprinted in my mind that the top fighters in the early years 1900-1960, had to sell tickets as the way to make money.. Undefeated records and paper titles weren't meaningful, it was how you fought, because there was no PPv, little or no tv, no major sponsor deals, dudes had to be exciting to draw crowds and get paid.. Dempsey is a great action fighter, drew huge crowds, but that doesn't autmatically make you an elite level fighter... In the modern era guys like margarito, mayorga, butterbean, gatti all drew huge money because fans knew they would always be exciting and that's why some especially gatti are known as throwback fighters,,, Dempsey if he was around today would be Marco huck with power.. Good action fighter and world class but not sniffing a p4p list

You should read the book he wrote. It's obvious that he spent a long time thinking about fighting skills and organizing them in a coherent fashion.

Most people today don't even know what jolts, shovel hooks, inside triples, and outside triples even are. Dempsey not only knew what they were but also could explain in detail how to throw them and when to best use them.

His technical knowledge is impressive, making him more than just some wild but exciting action fighter.

[bklynboy]

He's a buck 90 soaking wet. Superheavy's like Lewis, both Klits, and even Bowe would body bag him quick

I think that if Tyson had trained in earlier times and came in at 195 he would have close to the same pop he had coming in at 215.

[sonnyboyx2]

Lmao...


Dempsey by far is one of the most overrated guys..

Watched the dempsey Willard fight someone posted, and without a doubt both would get creamed in the same night by any modern heavy of the past 40 years.,.


Hands down at their waist, just dropping bombs..

These guys are about as skilled as gatti, it's a joke to think these are some great fighters..

Tunney shredded dempsey because he could actually box..,,


I feel everyone watches these old fighters with rose tinted glasses, These guys aren't skilled at all... Don't confuse entertaining style with actual skills

There is a reason why gatti is known as a "throwback" fighter..

Honestly Povetkin would stop Dempsey in about 4 rounds...


It's a joke to think these guys could hang in the modern era, when you couldn't stand over a downed opponent and tee off when they started to rise from a knockdown..

Don't confuse an exciting style with actual skills. I'm pretty sure even kovalev would knock Dempsey out...

Hands down, winging punches from the hip will get you ktfo in modern era...


It reminds me of the old school UFC cards,,, shamrock, Gracie, Severn, great for their era, but totally crude, limited,mand easily beatable by today's mma fighters... Same goes for Dempsey..

I don't see how anyone can watch Dempsey-Willard and think that's great boxing

Muhammad Ali said almost the same as what you are saying here. Ali said, "Dempsey had no chance of beating him with his wild swinging style". Yet when i watch Muhammad Ali vs Chuck Wepner fight, I see Ali himself doing just what Dempsey done, But Worse! .. Ali is wild and swinging from everywhere with his feet splayed, yet cannot nail the exhausted Wepner. Dempsey would have leveled Wepner within a single round. Dempsey had it all, Speed, Skill, Power, elusiveness, footwork, granite-chin and murder on his mind when he was inside the ring. Jack Dempsey was the complete package, he was the greatest fighter ever!

[billeau2]

i suggest you watch the Dempsey vs Willard fight. Then name for me any other fight in boxing history where i can see a heavyweight who moved like Dempsey or had the speed and power of punch like Dempsey. His bobbing and weaving style is incredible, His 5 punch combo which puts Willard down for the first time is savagery at its brilliant best. The grainy footage was filmed from the back of the arena, from a single camera with one pixel. Today we use over 50 camera's which use thousands of pixels. Jack Dempsey never walked like Charlie Chaplin, he was a lean, mean fighting machine. who was trained by the very best and in the most correct way to train a professional prizefighter. Make no mistake, if fighting today Jack Dempsey would still be "The Greatest Fighter who ever lived."

Its unfortunate that because of film technology people can't seem to grasp that the eyes can mislead. If Dempsey were filmed with todays technology it would be a lot more obvious how good he was.

[billeau2]

You should read the book he wrote. It's obvious that he spent a long time thinking about fighting skills and organizing them in a coherent fashion.

Most people today don't even know what jolts, shovel hooks, inside triples, and outside triples even are. Dempsey not only knew what they were but also could explain in detail how to throw them and when to best use them.

His technical knowledge is impressive, making him more than just some wild but exciting action fighter.

Incidently there is no excuse for not reading that book because it is avialable for free on line. It is indeed very well written....Dempsey writes methodically like a martial artist and makes some very keen observations about ****** habits people were acquiring back then. Unfortunately I don't have a link for the book but I bet it can be googled easily. He wrote several books this one was his best by most accounts.

[joseph5620]

I see a lot of hypotheticals and what if's but the bottom line is that Dempsey's resume doesn't match up to the hyperbolic idiotic comments from Gene Tunney.

I know what I see when I look at films of his fights and I know what I'm reading when I see his resume doesn't match his hype. I don't need to just rely on another person's opinion when there are resources to find them on my own.

If Floyd Mayweather or Larry Holmes had a resume like Dempsey's they wouldn't even be mentioned as an all time great.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

You should read the book he wrote. It's obvious that he spent a long time thinking about fighting skills and organizing them in a coherent fashion.

Most people today don't even know what jolts, shovel hooks, inside triples, and outside triples even are. Dempsey not only knew what they were but also could explain in detail how to throw them and when to best use them.

His technical knowledge is impressive, making him more than just some wild but exciting action fighter.

No one is claiming he was an idiot that didn't know boxing.. Dempsey is a great offensive fighter, but he was not elite, and def not an overall polished skill set.

I'm sure Arturo gatti and ricky Hatton could explain all sorts of nuances but that doesn't make you elite..
Their is a huge difference in having knowledge and actually being able to execute it in the ring vs top level guys..

In most sports the most knowledgable struggle as players but are great coaches, and star players are hardly ever great coaches.. So I really don't buy into claim that he was really smart so therefore he was great and not overrated..

[sonnyboyx2]

I see a lot of hypotheticals and what if's but the bottom line is that Dempsey's resume doesn't match up to the hyperbolic idiotic comments from Gene Tunney.

I know what I see when I look at films of his fights and I know what I'm reading when I see his resume doesn't match his hype. I don't need to just rely on another person's opinion when there are resources to find them on my own.

If Floyd Mayweather or Larry Holmes had a resume like Dempsey's they wouldn't even be mentioned as an all time great.

claiming Gene Tunney spoke "Hyperbolic Idiotic comments" is simply laughable. Gene Tunney was a very close friend and confidant of none other than George Bernard Shaw. Tunney claimed to his final days that "Dempsey was the greatest fighter who ever lived."...it's similar to Joe Frazier claiming Muhammad Ali to be the greatest, yet you calling Frazier, "An exaggerating idiot".

[sonnyboyx2]

I see a lot of hypotheticals and what if's but the bottom line is that Dempsey's resume doesn't match up to the hyperbolic idiotic comments from Gene Tunney.

I know what I see when I look at films of his fights and I know what I'm reading when I see his resume doesn't match his hype. I don't need to just rely on another person's opinion when there are resources to find them on my own.

If Floyd Mayweather or Larry Holmes had a resume like Dempsey's they wouldn't even be mentioned as an all time great.

Dempsey's resume is excellent. But to make a judgement of a fighter by his resume is laughable, just take a look at Ezzard Charles and Matthew Saad Muhammad's resumes which are littered with defeats. Dempsey it is known had at least 140 fights with half not recorded. He scored more first round knock outs than any fighter in boxing history. Fighters records back in those days were simply not that important, with no commission keeping log of fighters records or Ring Magazines for boxing fans to rely on. Those historians, Trainers, Reporters and boxing people from the early part of the last century, all claimed right up to their dying day that Dempsey was the greatest fighting machine ever. Right up to the 1960/70s and as late as Ray Arcel's death in 1994 their claims of him being the greatest were still spoken. Arcel is universally known as the greatest trainer of all times. training legends like Benny Leonard, Ezzard Charles, Jim Braddock, Barney Ross, Bob Olin, Tony Zale, Billy Soose, Ceferino Garcia, Lou Brouillard, Teddy Yarosz, Freddie Steele, Jackie Kid Berg, Alfonso Frazier, Abe Goldstein, Frankie Genaro, Sixto Escobar, Charley Phil Rosenberg, Roberto Durán and Larry Holmes. So for boxing fans writing here on this forum, many who have never seen a live` boxing fight in their lives. To claim all those people to be lying, wrong and not knowing what they are all talking about. is simply laughable.